2012 CBA Negotiations Thread

[Chev-boyar-sky]

Asking the owners to honour contracts they signed, some only a few days before the CBA expired is only fair.

The owners' proposal never included not honouring those contracts, it just added deferred payments to them in order to accomplish the requested revenue split. The players were still going to be under contract for the term stipulated and earn the total amount they were contractually entitled to (adjust for escrow, as contracts under the previous CBA were as well).

As far as I understand it the players pay a portion of their salary into escrow, and have the potential of getting it back. They essentially pay themselves later. From Donald Fehr's Memo to the NHLPA:

"The proposal includes a "Make Whole" provision, to compensate players for the anticipated reduction in absolute dollars from last year (2011-12), to this year and next year. However, it would work like this. The Players share in subsequent years would be reduced so that this "Make Whole" payment would be made. It is players paying players, not owners paying players. That is, players are "made whole" for reduced salaries in one year by reducing their salaries in later years."

Add in the immediate pay cut of 12% @ 50/50 and I'm not sure how the owners are honouring the full amount that they themselves negotiated days before the CBA expired.

Full memo: http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl-lockout/2012/10/17/cba_memo_from_donald_fehr_to_nhlpa/

 

[Kin]

I disagree. Offering up a proposal that delinks salary from revenue, when getting that linkage was the main goal of the owners in the previous lockout, was equally, if not more, ridiculous a starting point.

1. That's not really true. The PA, during the 04-05 negotiations, agreed to a fixed link between revenues and salaries much, much earlier than they did to a hard cap, proposing several soft cap systems with that fixed link along the lines of the NBA's current and previous deals. The hard cap was the main goal of the last lockout and something that would have remained under the NHLPA's proposal.

2. The rhetoric from the league can't say "the 57% figure was a product of an expired CBA and unrelated to our current situation" and that players can't expect a similar figure in this go around then treat the concessions the league got under that very same expired CBA as sacrosanct and set in stone for all future negotiations. Well. not with any sort of straight face anyway. I know it's anathema for anyone pro-owner to suppose any actual concession on the owner's part as necessary but the PA was looking at an offer where every single thing that they "got" last CBA was being changed so as to be more favourable for the owners.

3. A fixed, set in stone link between revenue and expenses, let's be real, is one of the things that owners have frequently cited during this lockout as being a negative for them. You've heard it all the time "What good is growth if we have to give players 57 cents of every dollar of it"? Baseball, which doesn't have that fixed link, has seen teams reduce the player's % over the last ten years because each team can set the level of their expenditures independently. The idea of de-linking revenue and expenses is coming at the league's economic claims from a different angle than the league wants but could very well achieve the same result. That is in no way similar to the owner's proposal which could be boiled down to "everything the same as the last CBA, only more so".

 

[Chev-boyar-sky]

The last 2 paragraphs (or is it only the 1?) are exactly where the players heads are. I don't disagree.

For better or worse the NHL has decided it's own economic course and is coming off of record revenues. The owners decided that all the deals that were signed were good for their clubs at the time and fair wage for the players they were signing. The players made almost all the concessions last time.

At some point they need to take a stand and show the owners they won't take being dictated to, while the owners then keep teams in bad markets while losing money. Suter/Luongo/Kovalchuk/Richards etc. aren't the reason Phoenix is losing money. If Phoenix can't afford to be open for business then it shouldn't bring down the whole league or cause players in Toronto/NY and elsewhere to lose 20% of their negotiated contract.

This league (the NHL that is, not the players) is completely ridiculous

 

[bustaheims]

As far as I understand it the players pay a portion of their salary into escrow, and have the potential of getting it back. They essentially pay themselves later. From Donald Fehr's Memo to the NHLPA:

"The proposal includes a "Make Whole" provision, to compensate players for the anticipated reduction in absolute dollars from last year (2011-12), to this year and next year. However, it would work like this. The Players share in subsequent years would be reduced so that this "Make Whole" payment would be made. It is players paying players, not owners paying players. That is, players are "made whole" for reduced salaries in one year by reducing their salaries in later years."

Add in the immediate pay cut of 12% @ 50/50 and I'm not sure how the owners are honouring the full amount that they themselves negotiated days before the CBA expired.

Full memo: http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl-lockout/2012/10/17/cba_memo_from_donald_fehr_to_nhlpa/

According the league's published version of their proposal here, the players will get the entirety of the money owed to them, assuming the league continues to grow at a modest rate of 5% over the next few seasons, as explained:

To accomplish the "make whole," each Players' pro-rata "make whole" will be determined for the first two years of the Agreement and will be paid to each Player as a Deferred Compensation benefit over the life of the Player's existing SPC. For those Players whose contracts expire after the 2012/13 season, the benefit will be paid when final HRR is determined for this season (in October/November 2013). Player "make whole" payments will be accrued and paid for by the League, and will be chargeable against Players' Share amounts in future years as Preliminary Benefits.

The "make whole" obligation will be operational only through the 2013/14 season because, beginning in Year 3, the projected growth in League-wide revenues should have resulted in an increase in absolute Players' Share dollars (in excess of the Players' Share of $1.883 Billion in 2011/12). This will effectively restore "full value" to all existing SPCs without any continuing need for a "make whole."

So, basically, the way the league explains it is that, for 2 seasons, players will have some of their salaries deferred, but, will, over the life of their contracts, earn the amount they would have been otherwise guaranteed to earn under the previous CBA (same potential to escrow reductions or ownership reimbursement, based on actual HRR final calculations). It would come out of the Player's Share, yes, but, since the deferred payments would be spread over the life of the existing contracts, we're not talking about massive chunks per season, especially after year 4 of the deal.

 

[bustaheims]

1. That's not really true. The PA, during the 04-05 negotiations, agreed to a fixed link between revenues and salaries much, much earlier than they did to a hard cap, proposing several soft cap systems with that fixed link along the lines of the NBA's current and previous deals. The hard cap was the main goal of the last lockout and something that would have remained under the NHLPA's proposal.

The league flat out rejected a hard cap that wasn't linked to revenue as part of the last lockout. I'll grant that a hard cap was a big part of the goal as well, but, only within a system where salaries were linked to revenues.

 

[Kin]

The league flat out rejected a hard cap that wasn't linked to revenue as part of the last lockout. I'll grant that a hard cap was a big part of the goal as well, but, only within a system where salaries were linked to revenues.

But the players, as I said, were more willing to go with that fixed link than they were the hard cap. If that was the main goal then there could have been negotiations off of that soft cap/fixed link system.

So at the very least, of the hard cap, fixed link, immediate 24% rollback, none of those things can really be singled out as the "main goal". The NHL wanted a bunch of things in those negotiations and were adamant about them all.

 

[Kin]

It's a two-way street but man, the players are going to take a poop-kicking by the fans.

Admittedly, I've been accused in this thread as carrying water for the players(largely because of my ridiculous and irrational left-wing, radical pinko stance of believing in the corrective nature of the free market) but I don't see how that would be. Both PA and league proposals are ones that end up in a 50/50 split in revenues. If you were pro player before this counter-proposal, I don't think there's much to change your opinion and vice-versa.

 

[caver]

They weren't going to form an agreement today anyway. The last 24 hours before a drop dead date will see real bargaining. They are baby steps closer...

 

[Bullfrog]

I think the players' proposal makes sense. Every year their percentage of HRR goes down but not so far that they make less than they did the previous year (assuming continued growth of revenue.) Within a few years it most likely gets to 50/50 and thereafter it can remain there.

The impetus for increasing revenue should remain with the league. Unless there's a real chance of revenue shrinking, there's little risk on the owners' share shrinking. In fact, they would gain more with revenue growth than the players. I really don't see much of a problem there.

There'd have to be some sort of protection for the Owners, but there is anyway with the escrow system which I assume would continue.

The biggest problem I have with the Owners' proposals, at it seems it's an opinion the PA shares, is that the revenue issues need to be fixed in one season. i think the PA's gradual approach makes a heck of a lot more sense.

 

[Bates]

How does this make sense for the owners?  They want salaries to be 50% of HRR right now.  The players have given a 6 year proposal that MAY get them to 50% in year 3 or year 5 or really never.  And how can players say they will give the owners 50% right now if current contracts are honored.  Present contracts now add up to more than 50%, without a cut they will still be above 50% if honored.

 

[maplesyrup]

It's a two-way street but man, the players are going to take a poop-kicking by the fans.

Admittedly, I've been accused in this thread as carrying water for the players(largely because of my ridiculous and irrational left-wing, radical pinko stance of believing in the corrective nature of the free market) but I don't see how that would be. Both PA and league proposals are ones that end up in a 50/50 split in revenues. If you were pro player before this counter-proposal, I don't think there's much to change your opinion and vice-versa.

I am slightly pro-player though truthfully, I'm just more anti-league than anti-player. Obviously some more info has come out since that post of mine but what's changed for me is that on the surface, the players seemingly haven't moved as far as the league did.   

 

[maplesyrup]

So Leaf fans, how's it feel to be a fan of the best team in the worst league in professional sports?

 

[Kaberle15]

I wish they could make a deal based on one of the NHLPA offers today.

Since IMHO the owners payed sky rocket contracts they are the ones to blame, so:

Accept that in X years the owners will be in the 50-50 range

or accept the 50-50 now and pay a luxury tax (to a mutual fund to help the small market teams) to honor the sky rocket contracts you signed with the players. (this one with a little twist from the PA's offer).

Anyway, don't call the players millionaries bastards that ruined the game, I do belive that owners digged their own grave with those mega deals and they should be the ones to pay the bill.

 

[Kin]

I am slightly pro-player though truthfully, I'm just more anti-league than anti-player. Obviously some more info has come out since that post of mine but what's changed for me is that on the surface, the players seemingly haven't moved as far as the league did. 

Well, putting aside the validity of that perception for a second, the easy response there is that the league has "moved" further because their original proposals were so outlandish. If players had started out at 65, then gone to 57 and then what they offered now they'd have "moved" further than the owners but it would be for show.

Remember, it's the league arguing here that in a time of record revenues and a profitable league on the whole that the players need to accept not only significant cuts to their salaries but also to their individual negotiating rights.

 

[Chev-boyar-sky]

How does this make sense for the owners?  They want salaries to be 50% of HRR right now.  The players have given a 6 year proposal that MAY get them to 50% in year 3 or year 5 or really never.  And how can players say they will give the owners 50% right now if current contracts are honored.  Present contracts now add up to more than 50%, without a cut they will still be above 50% if honored.

I believe it's called the "Collective" Bargaining Agreement, not The Owners Get What They Want Now.

How did the previous offer from the owners make sense to the players?

 

[Bullfrog]

I wish they could make a deal based on one of the NHLPA offers today.

Since IMHO the owners payed sky rocket contracts they are the ones to blame, so:

I'm of a similar mind. Though a simplistic point of view (I really don't have the interest to develop anything at any level of detail), it's frustrating me that the ones who have somewhat made this situation are the ones crying that they can't afford it. Huge deals for players and failed expansion strategies are hurting revenue, yet to save it they're going to reduce their biggest expense, one which they've somewhat created?

i've mentioned it before, but it reminds me of my personal situation. I'm underpaid because my boss can't afford to pay more. Is it because of the market? Hell no, it's because he's a terrible business manager.

I'm not against the players' share coming down, event to 50%, but I really feel like the Owners' need to take a harder look at what they're doing wrong.

 

[maplesyrup]

Remember, it's the league arguing here that in a time of record revenues and a profitable league on the whole that the players need to accept not only significant cuts to their salaries but also to their individual negotiating rights.

Oh, I'm with you there. Especially considering how the deal went down last time. Naturally though, I'd just have like to have seen progression today.

 

[Kin]

So Leaf fans, how's it feel to be a fan of the best team in the worst league in professional sports?

I'm reminded of the montage from the first Austin Powers where he slowly learns what's happened to the world since 1967

But seriously, I'll take the NHL and its work stoppages over the NFL and it's indifference to dying players.

 

[maplesyrup]

So Leaf fans, how's it feel to be a fan of the best team in the worst league in professional sports?

I'm reminded of the montage from the first Austin Powers where he slowly learns what's happened to the world since 1967

But seriously, I'll take the NHL and labour stoppages over the NFL and dying players.

Haha. Honestly though, in terms of what the fans have been through, the NHL is just trash.

 

[Bates]

The previous offer from the owners makes more sense because the owners here ultimately hold most of the leverage.  They are the ones that for the most part will lose less money not playing than they would by playing under an agreement they don't like.  They are the ones that will own and get revenue from their team for generations.  If the players lose a part of or all of a season they will never recover the money lost.  Many players from the previous lock-outs have stated this publicly.  They have a short career and really should make best deal possible to take advantage of limited time to make money. Try to make the best of 50/50 right now and maybe get some concessions on other stuff.  Trying to put 50/50 off for years to come is just not gonna happen.

How does this make sense for the owners?  They want salaries to be 50% of HRR right now.  The players have given a 6 year proposal that MAY get them to 50% in year 3 or year 5 or really never.  And how can players say they will give the owners 50% right now if current contracts are honored.  Present contracts now add up to more than 50%, without a cut they will still be above 50% if honored.

I believe it's called the "Collective" Bargaining Agreement, not The Owners Get What They Want Now.

How did the previous offer from the owners make sense to the players?